MR MANISH JAGDISH BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-41, MUMBAI

Briefly stated, f return of income o 1,41,39,170/-. The selected for limited s credit of brought fo statutorily notices un Act’) were issued an Act was completed return of income was assessment record a assessing officer did and omission has Accordingly, the Ld. Act asking the asses held as erroneous in revenue. The assess made complete enqu therefore order of the prejudicial in the interest of th e assessee are reproduced as un T erred in passing order u/s 263 of the I T erred in passing order u/s 263 witho mstances of the case & without givi he appellant. nt craves your honours leave to add t of the above grounds of appeal on facts of the case are that the a n 13.02.2021 declaring total return of income filed by the crutiny on the issue of agricult orward tax deducted at sour nder the Income tax Act, 1961 d complied and assessment u/ on 25.08.2022 wherein incom s accepted. Subsequently Ld. PC and after examination he was o not examine the issue of agri resulted in under-assessme PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of see as why the assessment ord n so far as prejudicial to the see submitted that the Assess uiry on the issue of agricultu e assessing officer is sustainabl Manish Jagdish Bajaj 2 he Revenue. The nder: Income Tax Act, out considering ing reasonable to amend or to or before final assessee filed its income of Rs. e assessee was ture income and rce. Accordingly 1 ( in short ‘the /s 143(3) of the me declared in CIT called for the of the view that cultural income ent of income. the Income Tax der might not be interest of the ing Officer had ure income and e in law but the Ld. PCIT rejected the as erroneous in so fa for the reasons, firs was filed before the a done by assessee, th work was made efo established that tho farm’, fourthly, certi from juri ictional Te setaside the order of out verification as d relevant findings of th “5. The submis tenable for follo

From above conditions to disallowable u/

As discussed the Income Tax order dated 25 to carry out du pass fresh ass factual submis Assessing Offic of being heard consideration t by the assesse

Before us the L containing pages 1-7 4. Before us ld. co the paper book con Assessing officer ha agriculture income. H 13 and submitted th on the queries raised income. Ld. counsel in question has bee d hence not falls in the ambit of p ) of the Act. sessee has not submitted any 'ce income of last three Revenue y l Tehsildar, The income of Rs.34,43, rain fed land in only half the Reven igh and there is no document in supp y the assessee. Sale receipts in Bazar it doesn't certify agriculture by the ass e fact it is clear that assessee is no claim exemption of agriculture in /s.2(1A) of the Act. d above and as per the provisions of x Act, I hereby set aside the impugne 5.08.2022 with a direction to the Ass ue verification, as mentioned above a sessment order after considering th sion made by the assessee. Needles cer shall give the assessee reasonab d and pass a speaking order afte the explanation and supporting evide e.” Ld. counsel for the assessee file 9 and 1-19. unsel for the assessee referred ntaining 19 pages and subm ad made details enquiry in He further referred to paper boo hat the assessee had filed detai d by Assessing officer on the issu specifically submitted that the a en purchased by way of the Manish Jagdish Bajaj 4 provision of ertificate of years from ,680/- from nue year is port of such Samiti only sessee. ot fulfilling the come and is section 263 of ed assessment sessing Officer and thereafter he issues and s to state, the ble opportunity er taking into nce submitted ed a paper book to page No. 4 of mitted that the respect of the ok page No. 11- iled explanation ue of agriculture agriculture land registered sale agreement. He subm negotiation of the pu & Tomato were sown immediately thereafte land and paid the a whom land was purc to the Ld. Counsel, for maintaining the c cheque of Rs. 2,00,0 land. However, subs famers and therefor labour charges for m counsel the land wa services of the labour submitted that all d ownership of the la Regarding the finding last three years agric submission of the a since assessee had p therefore assessee w agriculture income o Counsel submitted t wrongly. According to been carried out by t mitted that the assessee was in urchase at the time of particular in the agricultural field ( i.e. sm er the assessee purchased the s amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to tw chased for maintenance of the the said farmers were paid for crop. The Ld. counsel submitted 000/- were paid as advance of equently the entire payment w re the advance cheque was a maintenance of crop. Thus, acco as cultivated by the assessee u r of those two farmers. The Ld. details including evidence in and were filed before the as g of the Ld. PCIT of not providin culture income, the Ld. counse assessee filed before the assess urchased land in the year unde was not in the position to give f the last three years of the ear that Ld. PCIT has understood o him, majority of the process of the assessee using hired labour Manish Jagdish Bajaj 5 n the process of r crop of Ginger mall plants) and said agricultural wo farmers from crop. According labour charges d that the initial purchase of the was made to two djusted against ording to the Ld. using the hired counsel further support of the ssessing officer. ng details of the l referred to the sing officer that er consideration, e details of the rlier owners. Ld. the ready farm f cultivation has rers. Ld. counsel submitted that there had made all enquire the Ld. PCIT needs relieved on the order 5. We have heard the parties and carefull including the orders selected for scrutiny agricultural income proceedings initiated PCIT held that the Officer was both err Revenue. The basis f Assessing Officer fail the claim of agricultu erroneously accepted 5.1 Insofar as the Officer is concerned, 142(1) of the Act d Officer had raised ex assessee’s claim of sought information re  the nature and e is no error in the order of the es on issue and dispute and th to be setaside. On the other of the Ld. PCIT. e rival submissions advanced on ly perused the material availa passed by the lower authoritie y with the specific objective of declared by the assessee. In d under Section 263 of the Ac assessment order passed by oneous and prejudicial to the for such a finding was twofold: led to make requisite inquiries ural income; and secondly, tha d without proper verification. allegation of lack of inquiry by , a perusal of the notice issued dated 06.11.2021 reveals that xtensive and specific queries p agricultural income. The que egarding: type of agricultural activities un Manish Jagdish Bajaj 6 e Ld.AO and he herefore order of r hand Ld. DR n behalf of both able on record, s. The case was f examining the n the revisional ct, the Learned y the Assessing interests of the firstly, that the with respect to at the claim was y the Assessing d under Section t the Assessing ertaining to the eries, inter-alia, ndertaken;

4 We note that th the said notice, furn claim. It was submitt of agricultural land engaged local fa cultivation of crops, ₹2,00,000/- was ma harvesting as well as licensed vendors, wi The assessee furnish statements, confirma incurred, in support submitted that this and, therefore, no years existed. In our e towards purchase of agriculture lan nvestment are enclosed herewith. (Ann me during the financial year 2019-2 usiness, Income from Capital Gain w pital Gain on Sale of Shares and Incom includes Agricultural Income, Dividen k and Bank Interest. ot availed any credit facilities hence w ard. agriculture sales proceed in bank a bank statement to support the cla with. (Annexure-8) ed above, we have purchased agricu erence and this is first year of agricult he assessee filed detailed respo nishing documentary evidence in ted that the assessee had acqui during the year under conside armers—possessing requisite specifically ginger and tomato ade towards maintenance of s sale of the produce was unde ith payments received via ban hed copies of land records, sale ation from purchasers, and pr of the agricultural activity. Th was the first year of agricult comparative data from previo r considered view, the details fu Manish Jagdish Bajaj 9 nd along with nexure-6) 2020 includes which includes me from Other nd, Interest on we do not have are enclosed.( aim has been ulture land in ture income.” nses in reply to n support of its ired 9.875 acres eration and had expertise—for o. A payment of the crops, and ertaken through nking channels. e invoices, bank roof of expenses he assessee also tural operations ous assessment urnished by the assessee were not on also supported by ver Learned PCIT that n Assessing Officer is fa 6. The next issue income declared by t as defined under Sec agricultural income t land situated in Indi by way of rent or rev operations on such la 6.1 The Hon’ble Su Sahas Roy [(1957) principles governin emphasising that b sowing, watering, an weeding and tending Sarifabibi Mohmed Ib held that the determ agricultural purpose Further, the decision Raghunandan Prasad income earned mere nly responsive to the queries r rifiable documentation. Thus, th o or inadequate inquiry was co actually untenable and contrary that arises for consideration the assessee qualifies as "agric ction 2(1A) of the Act. The said p to include, inter alia, any incom ia and used for agricultural pur venue or from the performance and. upreme Court, in CIT v. Raja 32 ITR 466 (SC)], laid dow ng what constitutes agricu basic agricultural operations s nd harvesting, and subsequent g to crops, are integral compo brahim v. CIT [(1993) 204 ITR 6 minative test is the actual u es and not merely the own n of the Hon’ble Patna High Cou d Singh [(1944) 12 ITR 375 (Pa ly by purchasing standing crop Manish Jagdish Bajaj 10 raised but were he finding of the onducted by the y to the record. is whether the cultural income" provision defines me derived from rposes, whether e of agricultural a Benoy Kumar wn the cardinal ultural income, such as tilling, operations like onents. In Smt. 631 (SC)], it was ser of land for nership thereof. rt in CIT v. Raja at)] clarifies that ps and reselling them would not qua any cultivation activi 6.2 However, in the established that cult but through hired purpose. The settled Roy (supra), is that it agricultural operation are carried out und agents. 6.3 The records rev but also actively par engagement of labou agricultural produce matter, the agricul satisfies the legal test 6.4 The conclusion agricultural activity w borne out by the m principles laid down High Courts. The rev be invoked merely o opinion on facts du Officer.

In light of the f view that the order p of the Act is legally u 8. Accordingly, the the Act is hereby qua allowed. 10. In the result, th Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 30/06/2025 Disha Raut, Stenographer